Is recycled paper bad for the environment?
Discussion
OK, first off, I know lots of people on here will automatically come out with a knee-jerk reaction against anything to do with recycling, reducing waste of resources and anything that sounds even vaguely green. Hopefully, you can refrain from doing so on this, as I'd actually quite like to get to a factual answer!
Personally, I can see the value of recycling plenty of things, or reducing use of them in the first place - plastic packaging on food springs to mind - especially if the thing in question is made from a finite resource in the first place, but with paper I just don't understand it.
Consider the following points...
1. To have paper, we need trees. Therefore, surely any demand for more new paper should be good for the environment, because it requires more trees to be grown, and they promptly convert CO2 into oxygen.
2. I would assume that to recycle old paper to make new paper, you have to put it through an energy consuming process, but without the off-setting benefit of having grown new trees in the first place?
3. I would also assume that paper is a pretty rapidly biodegradable item, so presumably not a problem in terms of disposal?
I can see the point of taking waste paper and maybe turning it into loft insulation or something, but is there any actual scientific benefit in turning waste paper into newspapers, loo roll and the like?
To reiterate, please don't turn this into an anti-greenie rant! I'd just like to know if there is some sort of scientific benefit which is eluding me, as at the moment, I can't see one single logical reason for recycling paper.
Personally, I can see the value of recycling plenty of things, or reducing use of them in the first place - plastic packaging on food springs to mind - especially if the thing in question is made from a finite resource in the first place, but with paper I just don't understand it.
Consider the following points...
1. To have paper, we need trees. Therefore, surely any demand for more new paper should be good for the environment, because it requires more trees to be grown, and they promptly convert CO2 into oxygen.
2. I would assume that to recycle old paper to make new paper, you have to put it through an energy consuming process, but without the off-setting benefit of having grown new trees in the first place?
3. I would also assume that paper is a pretty rapidly biodegradable item, so presumably not a problem in terms of disposal?
I can see the point of taking waste paper and maybe turning it into loft insulation or something, but is there any actual scientific benefit in turning waste paper into newspapers, loo roll and the like?
To reiterate, please don't turn this into an anti-greenie rant! I'd just like to know if there is some sort of scientific benefit which is eluding me, as at the moment, I can't see one single logical reason for recycling paper.
Yes... a tree absorbs CO2 and releases Oxygen... but when you cut the tree down some or all of the co2 is released... so that renders your agument null...
Then consider that the trees are not being replaced at the rate they are being cut down....
And that cutting down trees and transporting them/pulping them uses enormous amounts of energy, perhaps more than is required to shread and re form already processed paper...
I can see what you are getting at.. and indeed if the trees were from a properly managed sustainable forest there is no issue... but most will be from developing countries where they simply dont care...
Plus.... if we dont recycle all the paper/card etc that resource will be sent to landfill and just wasted..
Then consider that the trees are not being replaced at the rate they are being cut down....
And that cutting down trees and transporting them/pulping them uses enormous amounts of energy, perhaps more than is required to shread and re form already processed paper...
I can see what you are getting at.. and indeed if the trees were from a properly managed sustainable forest there is no issue... but most will be from developing countries where they simply dont care...
Plus.... if we dont recycle all the paper/card etc that resource will be sent to landfill and just wasted..
Edited by tegwin on Wednesday 30th September 10:02
carreauchompeur said:
I think of it rather like glass recycling, possibly a simplistic view but it HAS to be much less resource intensive to, say, reprocess glass rather than making new stuff out of sand 
And turning a tree into paper rather than mashing up some old stuff sounds rather hard work too!
Glass is one of the most recycled products there is - always has been, as broken / ground up glass (frit) is one of the ingredients of glass. You can make glass from raw materials but it requires far more heat and energy, so something like 15 to 30% glass in the mix reduced the cost. And turning a tree into paper rather than mashing up some old stuff sounds rather hard work too!Ranger 6 said:
I understood a few years ago when I was buying print that the bleaches and chemicals used in the paper recycling process were far more damaging than the manufacture of new paper. For that reason I made sure that the ethic when buying was sustainable rather than re-cycled.
uses a lot more water too as far as I knowtegwin said:
Yes... a tree absorbs CO2 and releases Oxygen... but when you cut the tree down some or all of the co2 is released... so that renders your agument null...
That's one of the bits I don't get.I can understand the first time the tree is used being CO2 neutral, but surely at each subsequent recycle, more CO2 is used in the process, without the benefit of growing the tree again?
Maybe not quite a recycling argument but why just focus on trees..? An acre of hemp produces 4 times as much paper as an acre of trees (As Cypress Hill once famously sang)
Rather than waiting fifteen years for a tree to grow large enough to make paper how about we just grow some hemp? Also good for rope, biodegradable plastics etc... (The french even use it to make concrete blocks!!) Also more environmentally friendly as it doesn't require many pesticides and is one of the fastest growing biomasses known (Wiki...)
Rather than waiting fifteen years for a tree to grow large enough to make paper how about we just grow some hemp? Also good for rope, biodegradable plastics etc... (The french even use it to make concrete blocks!!) Also more environmentally friendly as it doesn't require many pesticides and is one of the fastest growing biomasses known (Wiki...)
Kermit power said:
Well in my case, because when I started the thread,I didn't know you could make paper from hemp! 
Also according to the Wiki article on Hemp:George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both cultivated hemp on their farms. Benjamin Franklin started the first American paper mill, which made paper exclusively from hemp, and the Declaration of Independence was drafted on paper made from hemp fibers...
Very versatile plant apparently, just has negative connotations with regards to it's intoxicating strains.
TVR_Scamp said:
Kermit power said:
Well in my case, because when I started the thread,I didn't know you could make paper from hemp!
Also according to the Wiki article on Hemp:George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both cultivated hemp on their farms. Benjamin Franklin started the first American paper mill, which made paper exclusively from hemp, and the Declaration of Independence was drafted on paper made from hemp fibers...
Very versatile plant apparently, just has negative connotations with regards to it's intoxicating strains.
It is almost the ideal plant.
Kermit.... from someone who deals with the paper industry daily.
1) recycling paper to make cardboard makes sense, both economically and ecologically, provided the original paper was NOT printed 4-colour
2) recycling paper to make writing paper of one sort or another is neither economically sound nor ecologically correct as
a) de-inking concentrates the few dangerous chemicals left and is difficult to dispose of (has to be incinerated at high temperatures). Also the solvents required are dangerous (either sodium based alkaline high pH solutions or alcohol/oil based solvents).
b) the fibres on recycled pulp are too short to use on their own (no strength) so virgin pulp has to be added (usually around 60%)
c) the energy balance is negative as one needs around 70% more power than when making paper from virgin pulp
d) governments give subsidies to papermakers to sustain the greenwash argument that it's ecological to recycle paper
e) the majority (90%) of pulp nowadays (in Europe NOT in North America) comes from totally sustainable new growth plantations
3) Paper is poorly degradeable in landfills, bulk (eg a book/broschure/magazine) might take over a millenium to degrade (as opposed to modern plastic bags which degrade in landfills within a year!) See how papyrus rolls in Egypt have kept for 4-5 millenia!
4) trees absorb CO² which is NOT released when making paper, only if this paper is burnt does the CO² (negligible) get released.
5) the most ecological use of waste paper that cannot be economically recycled is burning it at high temperatures, using it as an additional fuel when burning waste, and making electricity or supplying heating to a grid with the heat
6) Tissue paper uses very small amounts of recycled pulp (usually just the mills own rejects) due to the massive costs on cutting and perforating non-virgin tissue. (Knives and perforators last only 1/2 the time with recycling tissue)
The only real packaging/printing products that can be 100% economically recycled and make ecological sense are aluminium and glass.
The greenwash idiots of course do not agree with this but they have no technological knowledge of the processes involved only hearsay and emotions, which they sell on to the gullible public....
PS you can also make paper from elephant dung, due top its high fibre content! (being sold in the high street today!)
1) recycling paper to make cardboard makes sense, both economically and ecologically, provided the original paper was NOT printed 4-colour
2) recycling paper to make writing paper of one sort or another is neither economically sound nor ecologically correct as
a) de-inking concentrates the few dangerous chemicals left and is difficult to dispose of (has to be incinerated at high temperatures). Also the solvents required are dangerous (either sodium based alkaline high pH solutions or alcohol/oil based solvents).
b) the fibres on recycled pulp are too short to use on their own (no strength) so virgin pulp has to be added (usually around 60%)
c) the energy balance is negative as one needs around 70% more power than when making paper from virgin pulp
d) governments give subsidies to papermakers to sustain the greenwash argument that it's ecological to recycle paper
e) the majority (90%) of pulp nowadays (in Europe NOT in North America) comes from totally sustainable new growth plantations
3) Paper is poorly degradeable in landfills, bulk (eg a book/broschure/magazine) might take over a millenium to degrade (as opposed to modern plastic bags which degrade in landfills within a year!) See how papyrus rolls in Egypt have kept for 4-5 millenia!
4) trees absorb CO² which is NOT released when making paper, only if this paper is burnt does the CO² (negligible) get released.
5) the most ecological use of waste paper that cannot be economically recycled is burning it at high temperatures, using it as an additional fuel when burning waste, and making electricity or supplying heating to a grid with the heat
6) Tissue paper uses very small amounts of recycled pulp (usually just the mills own rejects) due to the massive costs on cutting and perforating non-virgin tissue. (Knives and perforators last only 1/2 the time with recycling tissue)
The only real packaging/printing products that can be 100% economically recycled and make ecological sense are aluminium and glass.
The greenwash idiots of course do not agree with this but they have no technological knowledge of the processes involved only hearsay and emotions, which they sell on to the gullible public....
PS you can also make paper from elephant dung, due top its high fibre content! (being sold in the high street today!)
Edited by JMGS4 on Wednesday 30th September 11:22
JMGS4 said:
3) Paper is poorly degradeable in landfills, bulk (eg a book/broschure/magazine) might take over a millenium to degrade (as opposed to modern plastic bags which degrade in landfills within a year!) See how papyrus rolls in Egypt have kept for 4-5 millenia!
that's a good thing, isn't it?that carbon the tree took in is locked away until the paper degrades
JMGS4 said:
Kermit.... from someone who deals with the paper industry daily.
1) recycling paper to make cardboard makes sense, both economically and ecologically, provided the original paper was NOT printed 4-colour
so how does that pan out then, considering that a lot of recyling will (i assume) be composed of newsprint? does that mean de-inking has to occur en-mass?1) recycling paper to make cardboard makes sense, both economically and ecologically, provided the original paper was NOT printed 4-colour
neilsie said:
JMGS4 said:
Kermit.... from someone who deals with the paper industry daily.
1) recycling paper to make cardboard makes sense, both economically and ecologically, provided the original paper was NOT printed 4-colour
so how does that pan out then, considering that a lot of recyling will (i assume) be composed of newsprint? does that mean de-inking has to occur en-mass?1) recycling paper to make cardboard makes sense, both economically and ecologically, provided the original paper was NOT printed 4-colour
1)Relatively simple de-inking for black can be done with sodium based alkaline solvents, this is done for newsprint daily in tonnes. The black inks now used in newsprint are water based and mostly harmless (think of fountain-pen ink!).
2) The other de-inking is for process colours (e.g.4-colour mags) and the more dangerous the (carcinogenic) toners used in digital printing (photocopying). Process inks are supposedly water based BUT the do hold large amounts of oil based solvents to be able to carry and dissolve the partly heavy metal pigments used, especially in cyan and magenta inks (cyan as in cyanide!). Worst are the new UV inks which are, when hardened, neutral, but contain often very high amounts of carcinogenic particles.
These inks/toners have to be loosened by soaking in aggressive solvents and the waste inks concentrated into a sludge, which is then dried and has to be sent to specialied dangerous chemical dumps, or better, burned at very high temperatures (like dioxins at 2000°C). The solvents then also have to be disposed of.....
As you can imagine there are huge sums of money involved here and also huge amounts of beaurocracy and energy...
Funnily enough, ecologically speaking, when you just dump a 4-colour process print, the inks are relatively harmless as dried product and would cause no problems. It's the de-inking which concentrates all the poisons in one place and makes them difficult to dump/destroy... Greenwash denies all this as they don't understand the processes....
Edited by JMGS4 on Wednesday 30th September 12:59
JMGS4 said:
2) recycling paper to make writing paper of one sort or another is neither economically sound nor ecologically correct as
Very interesting, but would you expand on this one, please?"Writing paper" suggests to me premium quality, long fibre materials. But what about the different grades of paper & card - newsprint, magazines, gloss and matt finish papers/cards for leaflets/packaging.
As outputs, how do they respond to the inclusion of recycled material?
Hugo a Gogo said:
JMGS4 said:
3) Paper is poorly degradeable in landfills, bulk (eg a book/broschure/magazine) might take over a millenium to degrade (as opposed to modern plastic bags which degrade in landfills within a year!) See how papyrus rolls in Egypt have kept for 4-5 millenia!
that's a good thing, isn't it?that carbon the tree took in is locked away until the paper degrades
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff